Skip to main content

About this Show

Key Capitol Hill Hearings

Speeches from policy makers and coverage from around the country.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v109






Mcconnell 23, Us 9, U.n. 8, Miliband 5, America 5, Afghanistan 5, Icc 4, U.s. 4, Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas 4, Britain 3, Sierra Leone 3, Russia 3, Nigeria 3, Eu 3, Buckley 3, Trade Union 2, Naacp 2, Ati 2, Irs 2, Boko Haram 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Key Capitol Hill Hearings    Speeches from policy makers and  
   coverage from around the country.  

    May 2, 2014
    4:00 - 6:01pm EDT  

parts of country and we have recommendations i said in my testimony. but that is the priority. ... these crises are expensive. they get more and more expensive the longer that they unraveled. yet in our budget we had very few mechanisms available for proactive convention. the fund is one of the newest tools that was itself in 2010.
it's funding catholic relief services, search for common ground and mercy corps. they could respond quickly. they turned around in a matter of weeks. that's a great tool we really think should be scaled up, at least $100 million, and beyond rapid response structure but finding, looking at priorities and how we can have more block of prevention. on your question of the transitional government, i think from my perception on the ground and from our staff perceptions there still is safe and optimism in the transitional government but it is waning as we mentioned that what we prioritize is that she has, the transitional government has a support package to pay civil sellers and restore basic a state function so that they can begin to provide services. we are happy with the world bank's announcement earlier this week which will be an initial
seller payment but it small. we think the imf really needs to get involved and we heard that they plan to send their assessment team in july which we think is not fast enough. if congress could help accelerate the progress it would be really great. fifth, on the question of population and th displacement crisis. there's been a lot of comparis comparison, but what i was trying to sort portray in my testimony what we are seeing is we think it's a fully it is something more like a drc was a massive protracted displacement crisis and international security is distracted and on response to the immediate needs without thinking of the underlying cause cause is the cf the conflict in the first place, and that we will end up having to spend billions of dollars for 20 years and still have a crisis. that's why we're encouraging long-term investment and see building institution building and political reconciliation so
we don't see c.a.r. fall into a similar line down the line. quickly on reconciliation, there are some local initiatives going on already on reconciliation but a lot of the local structures have been completely destroyed. there's a need to invest in scale those up with our local capacities that can begin figures also highlight the engagement so the u.n. mediation support unit has been working on the reconciliation plan, monusco political affairs, their primary test over the next few months is to find all the different power players and to start to talk about strategy. so i think the big key for congress is to stay engaged with that process and see where there are gaps and where there's need for support. and to ensure the reconciliation process is coordinated so local efforts and high level efforts are coordinated and going parallel, make sure that you don't lose the connection
between the grassroots. >> thank you so much. once again. i would say that the important point i think here, it's not just a matter of how many troops we get, and for me personally i'm not a military planner so i can't talk much about that, but i think what all of our -- what we've said on the panel is the political process has stalled. the government, there is still hope yes, but her ability to deliver is very limited because she has no army, no police. there are no judges. does not have a state budget at the moment. so her ability to respond to international interlocal expectations are extremely limited.
i think that's where the international community needs to come in to provide heard some tools to help her. you can provide her with finance, provided with advisors and support to bring out the political mandate. and then i think, secondly, the reconciliation process as everybody talked about needs to start now from the bottom up, at the grassroots level. you have all these different armed groups that are operating without any central command in different parts of the country. you can't just call the usual suspects of the key leaders of the anti-balaka and sober that way. you need a greater team of negotiators are advisors to connect, travel around the country and start to distill what are the local issues, stop the broken system. because we very much with my colleague here, once the dialogue starts i think that's what you also heard from the representatives who are here from the religious community
last year that it is possible to reconcile people here but it's not happening at the moment. >> i would agree that the new interim president and the government is not given to support it needs to really make an impact. they are losing credibility every minute of the day. in fact, the bishop when he was in bangui i went to the mess with the president had attended as well and he was very clear. the police and the army, the country itself has no arms. they are not part of this process and he had made the point that that been the case in sierra leone, ivory coast and other places. so the population that is supposed to be part of rebuilding the government and the society are not even involved in the process. with regard to support, i think i see it in three different ways and its support which has been
slow to the humanitarian situation, the security, and again as i said, the interim government. they cannot move forward and they lose that credibility with a population, and undermined the very governance that got us into this problem over the past several decades. regarding the workshops and reconciliation, in fact we do work in those enclaves and it needs to be expanded and i agree with my colleagues coordinated. but it has to involve the people of the country itself, and cascade down throughout the communities. if that's something that can be helicoptered in, but our work is very much with those faith leaders but also community leaders, parliamentarians. they have to take hold of the process of reconciliation and social fabric. thank you. >> mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and for continuing to bring this
issue to the center and forefront of not only our minds but to many of our colleagues. sadly, for many of the people we represent if you were to ask them to find the c.a.r. on a map, they could not do it. and yet the atrocities that are happening daily are things that they would find appalling. and so your testimony here today is critical because it sheds some light on it. my concern is that at times we take this in many of you live and breathe it every single day. so you know the subtleties of it. you know what works, what doesn't work. and yet when you come to testify you paint a very broad brushed picture of what you would like to see the c.a.r. look like, maybe 10, 20 years from now, knowing full well that it only
will happen in very small incremental stages. but we have, from what i'm hearing we have a critical timeline that must be addressed oath financially and with other resources immediately. it is that correct. all of you are nodding yes. so your testimony -- so let me go further. i assume that would be a yes from all four of you. so let me go further. because i'm putting this in several different buckets. what is humanitarian, one is peacekeeping, but the other is something that the ambassador a little too and i guess mr. campbell, you alluded to as well, is the policing side of that to even provide for a peaceful situation so that reconciliation, so that economic growth, a number of those things can take place. how do we best assist recognizing the sovereign
nation, you know, and the sovereignty of a foreign government to come in where it is not the united states trying to put their particular stamp on a country and a culture that we really don't want to americanize. how do we get that message across, and how do we very quickly on the policing side of it assist? because if you look to train police and military, that is a very long process. it does not happen in a month or two. so it almost requires -- what is the best solution to that so that the peacekeeping can indeed do the peacekeeping, madam ambassador, as you mentioned, recognizing we have limited resources but how do we best set the priority for what we do first to start this process?
>> thank you so much. i think your points are extremely important. one of the things that i think they can be done on the human side because policing can be done with the u.n. mandate as well if they include it in the mandate. your timeline about training, yes, that's down the line for people of c.a.r. but to bring in police as part of the u.n. mandate would not be unheard of and you can do that to solidify whatever gains you to make in terms of security. so that's one way to release start by including bringing in police units as part of the u.n. peacekeeping effort. so you can build on the police that are there to least establish or begin to establish security units that can go and travel and try to maintain the areas that have already, or that need to be re- secured and maintained those. and look at training the c.a.r.
police way down the line. >> is that something the current government would welcome? i mean, politicalpolitical ly what would we have? >> i think it's something that given the fact that the transitional government needs a lot of support, i think of something they would welcome because they understand the fact that without that kind of security they will never be able to reach their goal, or the goal of the international community to provide stability for c.a.r. i do think it's something they would consider positively everything is something we need to think about and actually encourage the u.n. to take a look at, including inviting police units as part of the u.n. force to be in c.a.r. one of the areas that you didn't mention that i really think we haven't spent enough time on is the impunity issue. i say that because part of that reconciliation is for people to be able to see that the
international community taking the question of impunity very, very seriously. that's what former seleka leaders, with former president and others to grab an address at the international t-bird as of yet. >> with a marginal judicial system within the c.a.r., so how do you do that? how functionally do you have that impunity where it gets dealt with? >> would have the international criminal court. that's one of the reasons the international criminal court is there what an intro system cannot deal with, with crimes against humanity itself. and so that is a mechanism. that's an area where we can at least begin a dialogue about the icc look at this question of impunity of some the latest better out there, some of those have caused the current violence and some of those that are responsible for the underlying causes that are in c.a.r. today. i think it's something we can do
it the icc is there and that's part of one of its mandate is to look at issues with the country's south cannot manage its own judicial system in a way you can address the question of impunity. >> can you comment if you would on the atrocities prevention board, how that is either play didn't or doesn't play in, or what role does it play in terms of in the c.a.r. at this point? does anybody, can anybody comment on that? >> and maybe others that are best placed but we are earlier today that as far as the administration understood maybe there was one meeting a committee others on the panel but might be better placed to answer that than i am. >> ms. rose? i see they are all looking at you. [laughter] >> from our perspective, as ngo community that is collectively worked on mass atrocities prevention, advocacy, in our opinion we do things that they
play very important role. for the comments that the abb or the state department didn't know about the crisis until november and december i thought that was a problematic response and that there's some potential opportunity for congress to push back and ask of that is possibly the case given -- >> potential opportunity. >> that i would love for you to use. >> i kind of did ask. >> if it happened in march and we have it structures to raise red flags up to the highest level how is it possible that they were looking at this intentionally in november and december. i think that's a follow-up opportunity. but atrocities prevention board from our perspective deploy and a portal. they were convening behind the meetings come to conflicts to position out of the state department was the key of obscuring information and august, september, october,
november the did convene immediately that open session with the ngo partners so we could express what we were saying. so that would not have happened without the atrocities prevention board and presidential study directive 10. that said, clearly we missed them we were too late. our question that again would love for congress to ask is what happened in march, and were thus atrocitieatrocitie s prevention set on parallel with other national intelligence priorities? if jill politically strategically irrelevant until mass atrocities were occurring, how were we better elevated that prioritization framework and how can we get ahead of, how can we speak how can we put their emphasis ahead of the curve instead of after the curve, correct? >> yes. >> i think in 2013 the other presidential directive 10 they are required to create a national intelligence estimate on mass atrocities everywhere in the world. that's not public but we understand has been created.
and so figuring out where c.a.r. was on that list, how it moved, i think c.a.r. would be a great case study for congress and their agencies to explore with the breakdowns are in that system. but we do think there has been progress and that because of the resistance can't because a presidential to directive 10, because of the core u.s. commitment to prevent mass atrocities the response was faster than ever would have been. and quickly i would add where we think there needs to be more progress moving forward, one would be unlocking the information sharing problem and these blockages. investing in more flexible and long-term funding across the board, recognizing that you can't solve c.a.r.'s crises and challenges in 12 months. we need multiyear assistance programs that left them deal with the complexities, and third would be to codify our commitment to mass atrocities.
so that might not live beyond the obama administration and less congress codifies it into law and that would be great. >> so let me kind of bring it down. if we were to only do two things in the next 90 days, what would it be? >> two things. now, i know that we need humanitarian and when the policing and all that but if we could only do two things and say this is the most critical time because we're underfunded, understaffed, we are, you know, what would it be? i was at a dinner and i could tell you, whether it's ngos can state department, the u.n., a number of them, the focus for them was to places, south sudan and the c.a.r. that was the focus and they were saying we've got to act and we've got to act immediately. buffer every that we don't act
the our lives that are being lost. so how do we do this if we were to say the next 90 days, you could do anything that you wanted to do, what would it do in terms of, how would you prioritize our involvement there? mr. campbell, we will start with you. >> security would be first because we need that operating environment spent by security giving policing or peacekeeping or -- >> if i could get away with it i would take both. >> but if you hav had just one,t would it be? >> the security meaning not the police but -- >> because the situation is so volatile that until that is stabilized, nothing else can go. and suddenly the humanitarian response because people are in such need, particularly food security over and above -- before you get to the immediate response. that has to come, but this is,
because of how this has evolved, this is a long-term disaster. particularly with food security. as i said earlier, this is a two years of consecutive problems with planting and so forth, even in the lean period before the crisis it was very difficult. >> ms. rose? >> i would concur that the first initiative would be to reinforce meniscus, specific trying to find replacements 850 -- monus monusco, but also just explore across agency if there are ways for the united states to increase or suspend monusco in the immediate term. number two would be to pass a bill authorizing multi-year assistance funding to c.a.r. that transcends the regular appropriations calendar so that not just financial assistance but a four or five your
strategic response bill that includes a dramatic development, diplomatic and political commitments to see c.a.r. through its commitment. >> what i would like, if you would, not for open testimony but if you would submit what the budget would look like, what the parameters. i don't need a cadillac or a rolls-royce version. i won't mission another vehicle but i need something less than that, how about that? >> yes, sir. >> i would agree that those are critical issues but i would like to propose that we look, think a little bit outside the box and not just think about more troops and more police. i firmly believe that with local dialogue, reconciliation approach, we will be able to contain the violence. it's another method to stop the violence that has not been tried in the country, and i firmly believe that it will make a huge difference on the ground once
people start to talk together. >> what would be their motivation to talk? >> their motivation is that nobody really has a good, not any good situation. people are displaced, people are being attacked today. so my experience from talking to local people, people are seeking leadership and seeking guidance. they are seeking someone who tries to put order in place. i believe that it's much more cost effective to stop local dialogue and to keep pushing for additional keep using -- peacekeeping forces. >> let me follow up and then we will let you finish because i know we are pressing on time limits for everybody. you mentioned a diamond and if you of the other things and outside influences as what component on what percentage of this is a terrorist organized
crime intervention within that in terms of diamonds and other natural resources, whether it be hezbollah or any of the others, what kind of presence would you see him having in the c.a.r.? >> it's not something we have seen to date. what we have seen is that particularly the seleka alliance and key members use average and control of diamond areas to finance the rebel groups. most of those commodities went through sudan because of the strong relations with the sudanese government and members of the militia. i think that's were i would have to look but i recognize these are more long-term issues that will not have an immediate fix. that's why i do not raise it as the most crucial point. >> adam ambassador? >> thank you but i also have to echo police in peace and security as number one and i think you can't split the two. you need both police and security but i'm going to go
back to the impugned issue because i think it's a double-sided. one because it showed if you bring leadership to the justice system then you have a better chance of reconciliation happening on the ground. if people see that the leaders of seleka or others that have looted and put the country in a situation that it is now, are being brought to justice, i think that a better helps the reconciliation process on the ground. against -- >> so that becomes the motivation for them to talk as mr. agger was talking about if they can't operate without impugned the? >> exactly. but if you have the leadership operating with impunity then what is the motivation, you're right, or even if you multi-peace, i think it encourages people when they see that the leadership is also brought to justice, to have a better chance of survival. i would encourage that we begin a dialogue with the icc in looking at possibly the c.a.r.
and bringing some of these leaders, leadership to justice. and lastly and it was touch on briefly, it's a complicity issued by various elements throughout the region. i do think that that's a stroke within a problem with the c.a.r. you to have various complicity support coming from different countries around the c.a.r. and what the role is whether it's in, on the economic resource side or whether it's on the political influence aside, those issues have existed for more than a decade in terms of outside complicity, helping to destabilize c.a.r. and that is not change. we need to bring our administration voiced and the voice of congress to some of those leaders around the region and address some of the complicity issues that we all know are there. >> i appreciate your patience and i yield back. >> just before we conclude, a
couple of final questions, especially as relates to the icc. yesterday in this room the committee passed by resolution that introduced way back in september and held a hearing on and did an op-ed for the "washington post" on the need for a serious war crimes tribunal that would be patterned after an ad hoc similar to what we had in sierra leone, rwanda and the former yugoslavia. the icc as we all know has not had, had one conviction in over a decade. it has 18 investigations, all africans, nobody else for some odd reason. and it seems to have all kinds of internal constraints, a lot of it has to do with the way it was configured, that makes it less flexible, doesn't go after as many people, doesn't have a chilling effect. one of the things, the chief prosecutor for sierra leone who sat right where you all sat just a few months ago, he gave a
number of scenarios of what that ad hoc tribunal would look like it you got to be the to go after both sides, the ability to go after more than one actor, one or two which is what the icc often does it indicate only 18 indictments in over a dozen years is not a record that gives a lot of hope that it will have any consequence here. so my question is, would be, should we be looking at an ad hoc tribunal as it relates to the c.a.r. similar to what we're trying to get off the ground for syria? secondly rose, you mentioned and talked about targeted intervention toward protecting women. several years ago i don't know if you know this but actually and the author of the trafficking -- gregson can become our chief of staff on the subcommittee and i learned quite horrifyingly that peacekeepers
in the congo were raping little girls. here are the peacekeepers with a duty to protect with a mandate to protect had not been properly vettevetted and were out of rapg little girls. we have three hearings on it, the u.n. did issue a zero-tolerance policy to its credit, did some good work a lease on paper and some tried to do it for real. but we went there and visited not only the peacekeepers but also a place called heal africa where so many women who had been gang raped by armed individuals as you point out in your testimony were getting a faith-based approach to helping them to get their lives back. to do with the, that is unthinkable and yet they're getting some real help. juxtaposes that any with the ambassador, ambassador sanders, is it a problem to nigeria, is it a problem of trafficking in
c.a.r.? we haven't heard much about that. have peacekeepers been complicit in any way? just the other day we heard of all of those young girls and young women, students being trafficked by boko haram in nigeria ended in march is about it is people are frustrated, and those young girls were sold into slavery. abducted and now sold into slavery by boko haram. i'm wondering if anything like that is happening in c.a.r.? have there been any reports of trafficking, and are we all making sure that those peacekeepers that are deployed and will be deployed are properly vetted so they don't become part of the problem rather than part of the solution? my final question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that the bigger macro issue is the impunity, rather
whether it's a tribunal order one off of the icc. i think it's the message that it sends and the vehicle we choose i think, i think both vehicles will be useful because we do have the international aspect from the icc. you're right on the number of convictions but at least it brings an international zero in on the community issue as well as you could probably do a war crimes tribunal as well. i think it's a question of impunity. i haven't are specifically on trafficking, but let me just say i would not be surprised if that is also an underlying issue that's going on. if it hasn't started there's a potential in instability that for that to become another unfortunately weapon of war. of trafficking young men and women in that circumstance i think that's another thing you are right to put on the table is one they went to watch. in fact, i'm headed to nigeria right now, and so i don't know
if i will be allowed, my flight leaves at 2:30. so if that is okay. thank you so much. >> thank you so much again. i will talk to the peacekeepers. there have been several incidents where peacekeepers have been involved in violent acts against civilians. the events we talked about earlier today where 30 civilians were killed, that was by chadian soldiers. some of them were even official soldiers that were -- inside the country which is just horrible and needs much more international security to prevent these events in the future. and i would also just take this opportunity to say that i'm publishing a report today about the violence in the country
where you can a lot more about our ideas. so thank you so much. >> i should note that we are deeply appreciative on the committee that c-span has given the american people the opportunity to hear about this tragedy from experts who are living it, it just give how one might get that report -- >> you will find it at the enough >> thank you. >> on the question of justice i would have three points. mercy corps isn't agency. i don't have an opinion on whether the icc is relevant to c.a.r. but i will go past that question if that's okay. three points i think about. one would be we really need to be talking to central africans and ask them what they see as justice. it's one of the questions i asked the most when i was on the ground, is a committed base, transitional, statutory? what will make you feel safe? there are some funds but not
enough. we certainly need more and we need to elevate their voices in the debate. mercy corps, we dozen structures where we are reaching the style of simply together surveys but it does take time. secondly, just to highlight that i think in the immediate term of preventing violence community based conciliation is the best approach. with our centers because the justice system has gone to a halt we've adjusted our strategy to be committee-based healing and reconciliation and we found out to have reductive results. and then just third, i would say there's a third come back to the point about needs for state-building and support the police are there. there are still civil servants that want to serve but they haven't been paid. that is a piece of the puzzle, and then on the issue of gender-based violence, i do not have information on trafficking
or complicit a peacekeepers but happy to ask my step and get that the. i think regardless of whether it's happened or not the big priority is ensuring the u.n. human rights due diligence policy which is peacekeepers is put into place immediately so that any new monusco triptych them in and those of the transition up from monusco are going through the vetting process now, the sooner the better. and then third on the point of holistic services and whether we are adequately funding, mercy corps isn't from the department of state from the security act africa bureau, such as to highlight that something is started in congress is now a funding structure and is working on the ground. but we aren't seeing any international response specific carved out funding right now. i would like to highlight that the sexiest it launched this past year suggested kerry launched a state from the start initiative is supposed to
prioritize emergency response in emergency response is the grants can be made available. i think c.a.r. would be a good example to say is that come to realize? we haven't seen it yet. so thank you very much. >> as far as the peacekeeping and the monusco forces, the configuration make up of some countries that were c.a.r. is certainly a huge complication in particular chadian forces at the time. with regard to the icc and the ad hoc tribunals, i have nothing to share in that regard. and then finally for the trafficking in c.a.r. by the peacekeepers, i can't speculate. i'vi have not heard of any repos myself. however, many of those countries that do border c.a.r. have these kinds of problems, but i have to say that there have been no
reports. >> you've all been extraordinarily insightful. thank you for your commentary, your recommendations as well as your relay the facts on the ground as best you see them. i'd like to thank my colleagues for this. again i want to thank c-span for giving america the opportunity to hear what is going on. some americans have a little trouble finding were c.a.r. is on the map, but, frankly, they our friends, our neighbors, our fellow human beings. we need to love them, embrace them and help them in every way possible so your recommendations will be very helpful. thank you for getting this message out to the rest of america. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> april unemployment numbers came out this morning. the country added about 288,000 jobs bring the jobless rate down from 6.7, the 6.3%.
some reaction from house speaker john boehner. he had this to say. our this week we learned economic growth largely stalled at the start of the year. >> and speaking of congress, here's a quick look at next week. the house will be back on tuesday for legislative work. we expect those of research and development tax credit. as well as possible action on a contempt of congress vote for former i is official lois lerner. the senate will be back on monday for more debate on energy efficiency and the keystone xl pipeline. you can watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live right here on c-span2.
>> the biggest challenge especially in the house where redistricting, that's where it occurs come in the house the biggest challenge that republican is going to face is from any primary somebody more conservative than he or she is. in almost every district that's the case. that's what they're worried about. the award about being challenged from the right. i think we've gotten the system that we designed. as a country. when we created -- i'm not suree that people who sure that people who fully created the districts realize exactly how profound the implications of all this would be. i would also add, some democrats, particularly minority democrats, have been in on this. there have been some states african-americans want to be sure that they have reliably
african-americans, not just democrats but one that has a large percentage of african-american voters so that they have representation for congress. >> this weekend on c-span from the anti-defamation league, changing demographics, redistricting and the republican party. saturday morning just after 11 eastern. later on c-span the white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and jill mcgill of nbc's community headlined the event for celebrities, journalists and the white house press corps. that's live at six. live sunday on booktv, former gang member, committee activist and political candidate will take your calls and comments at noon on c-span2. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go.
with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span channels or c-span radio anytime and there's a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows from her signature program like afterwards, to communicate his and q&a. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free tap online for your iphone, android or blackberry. members return this week to the british house of commons after a two-week recess. during question time on wednesday prime minister david cameron offered condolences to the family of the five british servicemen who were killed in helicopter crash that happened in afghanistan. he answered questions on eu sanctions against russia and responded to controversial payments made by alex salmond on russian president vladimir putin. this is about 40 minutes.
>> order. questions for the prime minister. mr. thomas.r one, >> number one mr. speaker. >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me ine paying tribute to captain thomas clarke of the army air corps, flight lieutenant rakesh chauhan of joint helicopter command, raf odiham, acting warrant officer class two spencer faulkner of the army air corps, corporal james walters of the army airlko corps, and lance corporal oliver thomas of the intelligenceoms corps, a reservist who also worked as a research assistant to the honorable member.. these tragic deaths remind us o the continued commitment andnd sacrifice of our armed forces and i kn and i'm no that our deepest ourd sympathies are with their families at this very, very t time.l time. i'm sure the whole house will also want to join me in paying tribute to and mcgwire who was stabbed to death in her
classroom on monday. it is clear from the tributes paid she was a much loved teacher that work to school for over 40 years. she gets so much about her pupils, should come in on her day off to help prepare them for exams. our thoughts are with her family, her friends in the entire >> mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. thomas. >> i very much associate myself with the prime minister's tribute to the servicemen who lost their lives in afghanistan last week, and to ann mcguire gloster life in the classroom. may i ask him about something different? last week the institute for fiscal studies revealed that the government's decision to travel
tuition fees will cost taxpayers more than the system it replaced. is this disastrous policy a symbol of the governments long-term economic plan? [laughter] >> it is another expansion of higher education. that's what we're seeing under this government. all the forecast from the hard opposite, that fewer people would apply to university, those forecasts were wrong. that people from low income backgrounds wouldn't apply to university, those forecasts were wrong. unlike other countries we put in place a system for tuition fees which means we can expand our universities and go on winning in the global race. >> mr. roger williams. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the prime minister and ate the whole house for paying the tidbits to the five men who recently died in afghanistan. in particular i pay tribute to lance corporal oliver thomas who worked for me in westminster. he was an outstanding young man
who was a well-liked and held in such high regard by everyone who knew him and worked with him. the loss bears particularly heavy over on his parents and family and, indeed, his friends who grew up with them. i'm sure the prime minister would want to join me in praising all our armed reservist who like all of her face all the risks better armed forces experience and sometimes sadly pay the ultimate price. >> here, here. >> my friend is right to pay tribute to lance corporal oliver thomas. it is a reminder, the sacrifices that we have born in afghanistan. this looks as if it was a tragic accident but we'll get to the bottom of what happened. he's right to mention how our reservists in all three forces serve alongside the regular colleagues and take all of the risks. in afghanistan they have proved again and again that they are people of huge quality, ability and courage. as we go forward and expand our
reserves, i hope everyone in her country, particularly businesses, the public sector, ma local councils and others including the civil service will do everything they can to make sure that reservists are welcomed into businesses and supported in the vital work they do for our country. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i want to join the prime minister adventure did to captain thomas clarke of the army air corps, flight lieutenant rakesh chauhan of joint helicopter command, raf odiham, acting warrant officer class two spencer faulkner of the army air corps, corporal james walters of the army air corps, and lance corporal oliver thomas of the intelligence corps who were tragically killed. mr. speaker, these deaths are tragic and poignant reminder of the sacrifices made by our armed forces including reservists in serving our country with bravery and distinction. all of our thoughts go to the friends of those whom we lost, including the honorable member, and we share his loss.
families. i would also like to join the prime minister thing traded to the speaker anne mcgwire who was murdered in the classroom on monday. this was an appalling tragedy. it is clear from the testimony of those who have spoken out since she died that she was an inspiration to those she taught. our thoughts are with her family, friends and teachers and pupils of the school. mr. speaker, yesterday for the first time we got to know the names of some of the investors including hedge funds who were given preferential access. how were these lucky few chosen? >> what we're talking about is an exercise in privatizing the royal mail which has been a success for our country. a business that lost a billion pounds under labour has now paid the money back to the taxpayer,
is making profit, and the people we should be praising are the 140,000 employees of royal mail who are now under this government shelled in the business they work for. >> now answer the question to the royal mail is featured in buffalo and was sold out. only he would want to congratulate for looting -- losing the taxpayer 1 billion pounds. now, now, each of these chosen few investors were given on average 80 times more shares than other bidders on the basis of the national orders words they would provide a stable long-term shareholder base. in the words of the business secretary, -- can the prime minister tell us what assurances in return for their gold ticket these investors it gave us so they would hold the chairs for the long-term? >> first of all he said the people were given shares.
they paid for scheppach second, he raises again, he raises again this issue that there was some sort of agreement. there was no agreement. at the end of the day he should be recognizing that a business that lost money, that he tried in government to privatize but failed, is now in the private sector making money, succeeding for our country and its employees are now shareholders but isn't it interesting that with the growth in our economy the fall any unemployment of the reduction in the deficit, he's reduced like all to labour to complaining about a successful privatization. [shouting] >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> no, mr. speaker but i'm raising an issue about a ripoff of the taxpayer which the british people know when they see it. the reason this matters, and the reason this matters, and the reason this matters is because -- >> order. the orchestrated yelling us are
predictable and incredibly tedious but it won't stop us getting through a bit longer. people can call down. take a tablet if necessary. mr. ed miliband. >> shares sold for 1.7 billion windowsill for privatization are now with 2.7 million. who cashed in? 12 of the 16 so-called long-term investors made a killing worth hundreds of millions of pounds within weeks. now yesterday, now yesterday the representative of the bank that sold the shares said was an understanding, and i quote, with those investors, he said there was an understanding. that's what it says on the record. with those investors about the long-term commitment to royal mail. so why were they allowed to make a fast buck? >> we are getting them we are giving lectures on taxpayer valley from the people who sold our nation's gold. [shouting] he talks about -- he talks about
ripping off the taxpayer when it was he who left an 11% budget deficit after the biggest banking bail out in britain's history. but i have to say these are exactly the arguments that they made about the privatization of the national freight corporation. exactly the same arguments made about british telecom and british airways. it pleases the back benches, it excites the trade union, but it's utterly utterly meaningless. is he recommitting to renationalize in the post office now? of course not. it's just plain to the gallery because he can't talk about the success of our economy. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, you should listen to members of his own side, what did he say yesterday? this privatization have left
people down. the interest of the taxpayer were not taken into account. he called unethical and immoral and he is nodding his head. that is -- now, he talks about the postal workers. he talks a lot about the postal workers, mr. speaker. so this is her interesting. there were no conditions on the hedge funds but there were conditions on other groups. can he explain why postal workers were told they couldn't sell their shares for three years but hedge funds were told they could cash in on day one? >> the post office workers were given their shares and it's right that they were given their shares. let's celebrate the capitalism. let's celebrate. i thought he believed in empowering workers. we are not a 140,000 workers about their shares. in terms of the risk to the taxpayer he ought to reflect -- >> order.
there's far too much noise. i say to you, you are a product of the ladies college. [shouting] [laughter] >> i cannot believe they taught you to behave like that. prime minister. >> mr. speaker, try to your right there is a lot of history in this shouting because of course in the past with all these privatizations we had the shouting. over each of us look at labour's candidates and "the sun" of straw wants to give you. son of prescott wants to get you. it's the same families with the same message. it is literally the same old labour but that is what is happening. no, he asked about -- [laughter] he asked about taxpayer value.
this is what the national order -- audit office said privatization has reduced taxpayer risk to support the universal postal service. this is a good deal for taxpayers because of this business was losing a built-in. it is now making money, paying taxes, gaining in value, good for our country but bad for labour. >> ed miliband. >> the post office is making a profit when they privatized. what we discovered today is one rule for the postal workers and another rule for the hedge funds. and mr. speaker, who rode these hedge funds? they've been very coy. none other than the chancellors test man. so why is it mr. speaker, it's one rule if you deliver the chancellors best man's speech, and it's another rule if you deliver the chancellors profits?
>> what this shows, mr. speaker, he can't talk about the deficit because it's falling. he can't talk about the economy because it's growing. he can't talk about jobs because there are one and a half million more people in work. so he is painting himself into the red corner by only talking about issues that are actually successes for the government but appeal to the trade union, the left-wingers behind them and the people who want to play the politics of envy. that's what's happening in british politics. everyone can see it. nothing to say about the long-term economic plan that shows britain is on the rise and labour is on the slide. >> and mr. speaker, what we know is there's a cost-of-living crisis in this country worst -- oh, oh, they don't figure the cost-of-living crisis. why not? because they stand up for the wrong people. the more we know about this privatization the bigger the fiasco it is. and national asset sold at a
knockdown price. a sweetheart deal for the city, and the government bungled of the sale. everything about this privatization stinks. [shouting] >> not a mention of gdp. not a mention of what happened while we were a way in terms of employment figures. non-eviction of the fact that deficit is getting better. we know, mr. speaker, he's got in his advisor from america. yes, he has, mr. axelrod and this is what he is giving advice is a. let me share because i think this is excellent advice. he says this, there's a better future ahead of us but we must not go backwards to policies that put us in this mess in the first place. [shouting] >> i don't know what the opinion -- >> order, order. order. [laughter] [shouting]
>> in response to that question the prime minister has finished and he can take it from me that he is finished. >> mr. speaker, from the cyber attack on estonia to the invasion of georgia to recent events in the crimea we have seen a clear pattern of behavior from the kremlin, and the west has allowed itself to allow wishful thinking to take the place of analysis. given that defense exports from the eu to russia have amounted to about 700 million euros in the last three years not counting the 1.2 billion of the french warships, isn't it about time we were talking about eu sanctions and? >> i think by right honorable friend is right on this issue. we have set out a clear set of sanctions in terms of russia's behavior toward ukraine. we have taken a series of steps
so far in terms of putting asset freezes and travel bans on named individuals. we take an acer is a diplomatic and other steps and we've set out the so-called stage three sanctions that we think should be taken if further destabilization of ukraine are set out and we do believe that restrictions on arms sales should certainly be part of that. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister promised by the end of this parliament a third of the cabinet would be women. we know the former cultural secretary had to go. does he agree with the new culture secretary that this is because government appointment should always be made on merit? >> what i said was i wanted to see a third of my front bench ministers being women at the end of a conservative government. we have made some important progress in terms of the numbers of people on the front bench. i have to say with respect to my
coalition partner in terms of cabinet members, the liberal democrats need to do a bit more people to wait on this issue but i hope you make further progre progress. >> to the subject of royal mail, as the leader of the firm which brought british gas to the market, and as the offer of -- [inaudible] may i tell the prime minister that the questions, the criticisms the way the royal mail launched was handled by party opposite those -- shows their total ignorance of the city markets.
[shouting] >> the fact is that when you're trying to make an immense sale, you have to take trouble to find people who are to underwrite it, and they are not able to prophesies what stock markets are going to be like a week ahead. and, therefore, the whole way, the prudent way in which to handle is for a sensible. it does if you are -- [inaudible] >> order, order. people are shouting. i know -- >> if you -- [laughter] if you fail, those institutions responsible for its launch are
ruined. [shouting] >> the right minister. >> he makes an important point because when you're privatizing state-owned industries, if you sell them for less than the price set outcome it is written off as a failure and if you settle for anything more than the price you are accused of undervaluing the business. that has always been the way. as i said that is what labour said with respect to british airways, british telecom, british aerospace. they oppose every single move to build a strong competitive of private investors sector in our country, and that continues today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. mitchum would like to be a policeman buddies only working part-time and can't afford the thousand pound bobby taxing each day to apply to join the met. his mom and dad are foster cares and they would like to give it to him if they had. is -- if my constituent is people of passing the fitness
and test requirements of the police why should his bank balance stop him? went to become a metropolitan police officer become an aspiration for the few rather than the many? >> the honorable lady is as questions about what she calls a bobby taxing let me make three points. it is not a tax. secondly, it is not a barrier to recruitment and thirdly recruitment is taking place in the metropolitan police. that is what's happening. we are seeing people being recruited. as is happening members who want to join the metropolitan police are able to get assistance with this qualification that they now require. >> mr. speaker, last week -- [inaudible] here in your apartment last night young scholars painted the scene from shakespeare's work.
mr. speaker, could this right honorable man, the captain of our state, make our national -- [inaudible] a national day? and cookie choose to tell before the house what shakespeare means to an? >> can i thank the ottawa friend for the beautifully and really crafted question about the anniversary of shakespeare's birth? it is a moment for celebration not just here in britain but all across the world where shakespeare's works are getting a wider and wider understanding and education. i will attempt the quotes he is brought out in his question but i was a to any politician if you read henry v speech, if that doesn't inspire and dry the on i can't think what does. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when will he published the relations they produced standard packaging for tobacco products? >> i can't prejudge the queen's speech but we said we want to take action on this front and we
will. >> thank you, mr. speaker. textile engineering, food and drink manufacturing are all blooming -- booming. for example, fabrics are producing the of wall street for master buses which have been very, very busy this week because they are grading jobs at apprenticeships. will the prime minister praise them and all the other local firms that agreed to attend my first ever jobs fair on friday the 20th of june? >> first let me make it to my on welfare for holding his job fairs, a number of members of parliament have taken this approach and it's in real benefits in local areas as you get businesses coming forward pledging apprenticeship, pledging to take people on and you can bring them together with people who are looking for work. what we've seen since the recess is a series of figures in our economy, growth now running at over 3%, 1.5 million of our
fellow countrymen and women in work since this government came to power. inflation now at a five year low, this is confidence at its highest level since the early 1970s. there's still more work to do, absolutely no complacency. the long-term economic plan is not completed but it is well on its way. >> before he was elected, the prime minister said that if they let me he would put a -- [inaudible] making use of the cheapest most developed form of renewable energy. last week he announced his party wants to add support for onshore wind. 70% of the public to support a. what changed his mind? >> what has changes with seeing a massive increase of onshore wind in our country. we will achieve with what is in the planning system and under construction approaching 10% of our electricity demand provided by onshore wind. i think the question then is is a right to continue to overrule local planners and local people
and the continued -- to put taxpayer money and have to build that onshore wind? i don't believe it is. the manifesto will make it very clear for local communities to see. of the parties will have to make their own choices. >> in the last few weeks, over 160 million pounds of private investors was announced. we vetted 3000 new of friendship since the new election. in short -- [inaudible] does the prime minister agree with me that as recourse goes, pay follows the? >> i'm glad to hear he is leading the way, particularly on apprentices. where we are it is not 1.6 million apprentices have started under this government, our target is 2 million. we would see a particular expansion of higher level of apprenticeship schemes but it is a major part of the living our long-term economic plan.
>> thank you, mr. speaker but i'm sure the prime minister read last week's excellent report by the all party group which is set out how consumers are getting a raw deal from the secondary market. the question is, mr. speaker, whose side is the prime minister on? >> i haven't seen the report the honorable lady mentioned. i will have a look at it and i will discuss it with my right honorable friend who i welcome to the cabinet, who i think, labour seems to criticize the point but i'm not quite sure on what basis they were doing the. i think you are doing an excellent job for our country. very happy to study the report she mentioned. >> a number has fallen 25% in the last year but they're still
so much more to do. i'm hosting a jobs fair this friday. >> here, here. >> in the light of -- [inaudible] what else is government doing to make it a reality? >> what we've seen already is 1.7 million private sector new jobs created, far outstripping the loss of public sector jobs so there are one and have been people altogether. we seen an increase in full-time work. in terms of driving further employment growth i think the clear message to businesses you've got the 2000 pounds on financial insurance bill which i think can help people to take on the employment. the cuts do business with someone shops is also very welcomed, and from next year anyone under the age of 21, you won't have to any national insurance, contradictions at all. we want to see more people in
work and rais to raise even fort level of aspiration in our country. >> mr. speaker, nuclear power is a very important component of our energy mix because it produces large amounts of electricity with very little co2. this government called itself the green is government ever. what will his government do to ensure that nuclear power stations such as hinckley point which is already five years behind schedule, is online on time? >> i have to say to the honorable gentleman i'm sure he has a constituency interest in this because the northwest is very important energy assets for our country. the last labour government was in power for 13 years but can never build a nuclear power station nor make any progress on moving towards doing it. under this government we have hinckley point going ahead, the most exciting development. i believe there is opportunity
of more to come. that is what we're doing putting our money where our mouth is and making sure we have nuclear power providing high quality base load power which is carbon free. >> thank you, mr. speaker. business confidence is returning, unemployment is falling come more new jobs are coming to my constituency. most of that relies on infrastructure spending, financed by private pension funds. does my right honorable friend share my regard the labour's raid on retirement funds, the brainchild of the shadow chancellor, an estimated two amounted to 118 billion pounds last week, not only racked private pension but hobbled by private sector infrastructure that was in our country for a generation? >> i'm delighted to hear about the effect you got employment rising, unemployment falling, more people taking on apprenticeships and businesses expanding. that is what we see across our
country and decisive in 20 minutes into prime minister's question not a single labour member of parliament has been turn gdp unemployment, growth in the country our economic plan. they don't want to talk about our economy because they can see it's getting better under this government. >> will the prime minister make representation in relations -- that have been held under house arrest in saudi arabia for more than 10 years? would he agree with me that human rights and women's rights should be our priorities and our relationship with saudi arabia the? >> i read the report as she did and i share her concern and i will look into it further. in terms of our relations with all countries, we do give a proper party for human rights and to the rule of law and we raise these issues with all countries that we meet with. >> could i gently tell the prime
minister the liberal democrat women not only pull their weight but perfect a ready and willing to push their way. i recently -- [shouting] i recently hosted -- [inaudible] the culture and what can be done to build up women in its name. i know the issues, forced an early marriage are important to my right honorable friend. so would he please consider viewing the film and showcasing on these issues that he's hosting in july? >> i think the honorable lady first of all can i thank her for the work that she does particularly on women and enterprise with a business department i think is widely important to the point i was making is i know all parties in this house want to see greater
gender equality and representation, present incumbent and the rest of it, and all parties have made progress. my party has made progress and there's more we want to do, specifically on her concerns about preventing sexual violence in conflicts, we are taking huge steps this year in raising the profile of those issues. i pay tribute to the leadership shown by the foreign secretary. also the country that has met its targets in terms of 1.7% of aid going to gdp going in aid. we are able to push this item right up the agenda which we will do over the course of this year. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday ukrainians in scotland wrote expressing disgust and astonishment as the first mission statement. will be prime minister support the statement of the scottish ukrainian committee and state and labour and condemning those statements which support, which
support a regime which oppress his a minority group and silences its critics? >> i agree wholeheartedly with the honorable lady. i think what alex salmond said was a major error of judgment. i think all of us in this house should be supporting the ukrainian desire to be a sovereign independent country and to have the respect of international community, and party leader for that ambition. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i met with just jumpstart who is a charity. will my friend congratulate the council of worked with myself and my honorable friend, a year committing 75,000 pounds to a program of up to 50 committee public access defibrillators that will save lives? >> this sounds like an excellent campaign.
we have as a country taken a lot of steps forward in terms of making sure this sort of equipment is more readily available because if you can find people who suffered a heart attack quickly, you can save lives in those golden minutes in that golden hour when it first strikes. i it sounds like an excellent idea and i join him in paying tribute. >> over the last 12 months the use of food banks has increased by 93%. social landlords, read her rates have gone up by 84%. will be prime minister except that the governments own policies are driving up debt and poverty? >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is clearly the best route out of poverty is work and we should welcome the fact there are one and a half million more people in work. if you look at the figures of course he is right that food bank usage has gone up not least because food banks are not properly advertised and
promoted, not least by java center plus but also by local authorities. if he wants to deal in facts, the oecd has shown the proportion of people struggling to buy food in the uk has actually fallen since before labour's great recession. i know that members opposite want to make this argument about policy and inequality in britain but the fact is that statistics don't back them up. inequality has fallen compared to when they were in office. there are few people in both the poverty and fewer children in relative poverty. the picture they want to paint because they can't paint a picture about economy that isn't going, they can't paint a picture about people not getting jobs. the picture they're trying to paint is wholly false. >> with the service sector, with the manufacturing sector and with the construction and manufacturing sector all growing at 3% plus, with the prime minister agree the economy is well on the road to recovery and rebalancing as well?
>> i'm grateful for the question. the recent figures did show that manufacturing was one of the faster growing sectors of our economy and i welcome that but i think what the chancellor said in his budget is we are not resting on our laurels and saying the job is done. there's more work to address the fundamental long-term weaknesses of the british economy. we need to manufacture more, export more, save more and we need to invest more. unlike the party opposite we have policies that promote all of those things. >> there's been so much noise that only from her seat but on her feet. [laughter] >> has prime minister seen the study which shows that two-thirds of local council are either dimming are cutting their streetlights at night. and does he think that women are feeling safe in the local communities at night under his government? >> i have like all honorable members to take part in election campaigns have been lobbied on this issue on both sides of the
argument. i think it is an issue for local determinations. i want to see good street lighting but we should listen to the arguments from the police and others about the effects that this has. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend on economic prosperity. [inaudible] >> we are very happy to look at the issues she raises, but the weapons that we've used to try to help young people who don't have rich parents but who can afford, who can afford mortgage payments is help to buy because it helps them to get together that deposit of 5% deposit rather than 15 or 20% deposit to the labour party are shouting about it. they should be welcoming this. it's expanding aspirations and growth in our country but that is what they should be promoted
and that is the approach we will take. >> order. >> i have to inform the house that i have received the following letter from the house. i write to inform you that i've indicated to her majesty, the queen that i wish to surrender as clark of the house at the end of august this year. i shall then have served the house for 42 years over 11 parliaments, and for the last decade at the table. as clark of the house i've been fortunate, indeed, to the best job in the service of any parliament, indeed one of the best jobs in the world. i have been lucky enough to have been involved in most of the innovations in the procedure and business of the house over the last 10 years. whatever the attitudes of polimetrix and whatever brickbat
may be thrown at it i conclude said that the house now is a more effective scrutiny or and more topical relevance and independent-minded than i have ever known it. as chief executive of the house service of some 2000 staff, i've had the great privilege of leading a remarkable group of talented people, deeply committed to the house and whatever their role here, all the rightly proud of being stewards of the central institution in our democracy. that commitment and pride has been a feature of working like her for as long as i can remember, but in recent years it has been increasing levels of professionalism and teamwork and than ever clear focus on delivering the services required by the house and its members as well as reaching out to education and information to the
world beyond westminster. i am so grateful to have had throughout my service, especially over the last three years, the support and friendship of members on all sides of the house, and especially of the occupants of the chair as well as the happy camaraderie support and counsel of my colleagues at all levels. i have spent much of my career seeking to make the house and its work and the work of its members better understood by those whom it has served and the citizens of the united kingdom. for i believe that with understanding comes value and with valuing comes ownership. and our citizens should feel pride in the ownership of their parliament. the house of commons across the century has never expected to be popular. and, indeed, it should not cost
popularity, but the work it does in calling governments to account and its role as a crucible of ideas and challenge deserves to be better known, better understood and so properly valued. so, too, does the work of individual members, the workings of the constituents, but often as the last resort of the homeless and hopeless, the people whom society has let down. this is a worthy calling and should be properly acknowledged and appreciated. this house is the precious center of our parliamentary democracy. and with all my heart i wish it well. yours sincerely, robert rogers. >> here, here.
>> c-span newest boat sundays at 8:00, a collection of interviews with some of the nation's top story tellers. >> in the beginning of the war when you were pressed into it they were afraid.
we went to the first battle and fog and shot somebody chemical somebody, it does something to you. after time went on it became easy, it became normalized, this word. actually in the context this is what happens. the normalizes situation so that you can live through it because if you don't you actually died. >> one of 41 unique voices from 25 years of our book notes and q&a conversations c-span sundays at 8:00 published by state affairs books now available at your favorite bookseller. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.
what justin hd, like the sun facebook, falls on twitter. >> next house budget committee ranking member talks about campaign finance disclosures saying, individuals and corporations should not be able to spend millions on television ads without telling the public and they are. representative and holland is the sponsor of the disclose act, which requires outside organizations to disclose their funding sources. ati president arthur brooks moderates this hour-long event. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. i am delighted to welcome you to this event entitled should anonymous campaign expenditures be allowed and invest by representative chris and holland i am delighted that representative dan holland joins us here at a ei, first elected to congress in 2002 when he
defeated in his primary the man who happens to be my next door neighbor and to delightedly voted for him ever since until they get redistricted away from all of us in 2012. he is currently the top democrat on the budget committee. he has distinguished itself as a leader in legislation for more than a decade. he has served on the democratic including a stint as the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee most importantly for ic is smart, serious, thoughtful, and exactly the kind of policymaker we like to welcome. the issue we are here to discuss today is the intersection of free speech and the disclosure of contributions to tax-exempt organizations that engage in campaign activities. some of you may have been here. if you want, you may have heard that a year ago we heard one perspective from senate minority leader mcconnell and congressman dan holland is here to represent the perspective outlined in his new legislation on the topic. of course so i recommend to you
for your interest that you read that disclose act to. we are looking forward to his remarks. following his remarks he will take his own questions and answers. so please join me in warming congressman chris van holland. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you, arthur. i want to thank the ei for the opportunity to join me today. i wanted thank arthur brooks for his strong and innovative leader here. i am pleased to join on several previous look kate -- occasions including two years ago when i joined together with congressman paul ryan to debate various budget issues. i want to thank you for your commitment to the free exchange of ideas this which is such a vital part of a free society and strengthens our democracy and our economy. i am here today not to discuss the budget, but to discuss a matter that goes to the heart of our democracy, and that is an
open and transparent political process. specifically i want to make the case for a very straightforward proposition, that the public should be informed about who is spending vast sums of money to influence their decision to vote for or against candid it's, for public office. i can tell you, the public believes this information is important. polls consistently show that over 85 percent of the public agrees that all political contributions and expenditures should be publicly disclosed. in this view is held by over 80 percent of democrats, republicans, and independence. in addition, while the old to the decision in supreme court controversial 2010 citizens united case was about clause 5-4 split, eight of the nine justices gave full-service support to disclosure, which they said brings transparency
that enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. now, that brings me to what i am not here to talk about. i am not here to talk about love final decision in that case. i disagreed with the court's ultimate decision. for now it is the law of the land. nor am i here to talk about various campaign finance proposals that i think would improve our system. i am here today to talk about the principles of disclosure which, until recently, seemed to enjoy strong bipartisan support in the congress. and i especially want to make this appeal here for two reasons one is your commitment for the free exchange of ideas. second, as arthur mentioned, on two occasions the senate republican leader, mitch
mcconnell, has used to this very podium in june 2012 and then june 2013 to attack the idea that we should fully disclose to the public the sources of campaign expenditures used to try to elector -- to the feet or elect candidates for federal office. and on both occasions, 2012, 2013, he planned to be opposing disclosure and transparency in order to protect free speech and the first amendment. here is what senator mcconnell said to you in june 2012. the attacks on speech and perhaps the most prominent, the so-called disclose act. he went on to say, perhaps one of the most important thing republicans did in the past few years was to block passage of the disclose act. senator mcconnell was back at this podium last june making
similar statements. he said, and i quote, the disclose act was not really about cleaning up politics. it was really about the left-wing finding a blunt political weapon to use against when group and one group only, conservatives say. that is what senator mcconnell said here last year. now, here is why i want to talk. i am the author of that disclose act passed the house of representatives in 2010 and the author of a revised version of the disclose accurate is pending in the house today. so i must be that scary lefty that senator mcconnell was talking about, and i am here to joe you that his analysis, to put it diplomatically, is a bunch of nonsense. and i really hope that many of you in this room regardless of your political persuasion and
those are watching can help get us back to a time that the bipartisan consensus that exists around the country on this issue will re-emerge on capitol hill. who better to a site for my own position today than senator mcconnell himself. not the senator mcconnell of 2012 and 2013 here in ati, but the senator mack, who spoke to the nation on beat the press in the year 2000. and it is important to understand the context of his statements at that time. the senate had just voted on june 9th 2000 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 92-6 to require groups organized under five to seven of the tax code to publicly disclose their political expenditures on behalf of candidates.
five 2/7 include all political action committees and currently include what are known as super packs. now, senator mcconnell was one of the six to vote against that 527 disclosure, but he justified his opposition on the grounds that the disclosure requirements did not extend to more groups. here is what senator mccall said on meet the press nine days after that sent up. he mentions the senate vote and said that, if you are going to require disclosure, it needs to be meaningful disclosure. 527 is just a handful of groups. we need to have real disclosure. broaden disclosure to include at least a labor unions the major
political players in america. why would all little disclosure be better than the a la the disclosure? indeed, why would of the disclosure be better than all of our displeasure? i agree with what senator mcconnell said. the american people agree, and that is what the disclose act does. it calls were disclosure not just by five 2/7 but by the other groups, senator mcconnell said should be included. now a consensus statement senator mcconnell as totally flip-flop on disclosure. he has gone from saying we need more disclosure to arguing that more disclosure is some left-wing conspiracy to end free speech. he led the filibuster that blocked the vote on the senate version of the disclosure act in 2010. fifty-nine senators voted to proceed with the vote, but it
was blocked by senator mcconnell and a minority of 41 senators. since then i have introduced revised versions of the disclosed that in both the last congress and this congress which address some of the concerns that senator mcconnell had earlier raised, but his opposition to transparency and disclosure as only hardened. let's look at the objections of senator mccall race here at a eye over the last two years. first, he argued that the disclose act requires disclosure on a selective basis, that it requires disclosure only from conservative and republican leaning groups and not liberal or democratic affiliated groups. i have here in my hand a copy of the disclose act introduced in the house of representatives, and i challenge senator mcconnell or anyone else to show
me where it selectively targets conservative groups. this bill requires disclosure by all groups spending money to elect or defeat candidates regardless of their political leanings. i invite senator mcconnell to suggest any changes he thinks are necessary to insure that it applies in a uniform manner. i don't expect a phone to ring, expect to get a call from the senator any time sent. that is because the claim of activity is a red herring. the real selectively problem is the one senator mcconnell raised in 2000 on meet the press. we should not selectively limit disclosure to five 2/7. the disclosure requirement should apply more broadly. remember, he said, why would a little disclosure be better than the one on disclosure? and the disclose act does
exactly what he recommends. it expands disclosure beyond five to seven to other groups it will hurt our democracy and undermine free-speech the first amendment right to free speech first. in this beecher years of your read just as thomas's partial defense and citizens united on this very matter. in doing so senator mcconnell failed to disclose that all of the other eight justices in citizens united rejected that argument and that the supreme court has already developed mechanisms to address cases of extreme and demonstrable
oppression. the supreme court in cases ranging from buckley v vallejo to services and added to the recent metuchen case have repeatedly argued that disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures advances important public interest, and the court has rejected the arguments put forward by senator or,. one, the public interest in knowing who is spending money to try to and florence their votes, to the transparency serves an important anti-corruption interest. the prohibition on foreigners for foreign-on corporation spending money in u.s. elections
here is what the supreme court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to a lot of publicity. a public armed with information about a candid it's most generous supporters is better able to detect any post-election special favors the may be given an return. in citizens united aid of the nine supreme court justices including justices roberts, kennedy, scalia, and alito from the disclosure requirements for independence spending groups do not prevent anyone from speaking .
providing the electorate with information about collected related spending sources spill. the others to make informed decisions and the political marketplace. as a e.r.a. has pointed out, it is clear from justice kennedy's opinion that disclosure was a key factor six in on locking their rest of the citizens united decision. if disclosure was a counterweight to the expansion of money into the election efforts of corporations and other groups. and those eight justices went on december with the advent of the internet prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens where the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. shareholders can determine
whether the corporation political speech advances the corporation interest in making a profit, citizens can see were elected officials in the pocket of so-called money interest. eight of the nine supreme court justices, those are the big leftwingers trumping the benefits of disclosure and transparency. you look at the recent cuts in case again reaffirmed the importance of disclosures citing there earlier precedents. now in its decision the court has addressed the specific concern raised by senator mcconnell and justice collins. justice toffler of the 1958 case the court declared that alabama's law requiring individuals exposing those
individuals to physical severe threats and retribution. a court, naacp case put forward a strict yes for groups seeking to avoid disclosure. and in the later 1976 buckley decision the court rejected a challenge to a disclosure requirement based on that earlier naacp case. the buckley court found that the strict test for boarding disclosure in naacp did not avoid the campaign finance disclosure requirements that upheld in broccoli, and the buckley court said that a group could seek exemption from the disclosure requirements of it could demonstrate that it will be subjected to an actual not speculative burden on the freedom of association and they
had met and exempted them from current disclosure requirements. i also want to emphasize that the this those that addresses these concerns. supporting the general mission however it said the organization must spend money they could set up a separate election and disclose contributions above a thousand dollars fast. moreover the disclose tax does not displace the current law that allows groups the disclose even those requirements of
second ministers to it -- strict test established by the but the court offs. it's a tough test. as justice billy a road in his recurring opinion candid soviet we've read case that upheld disclosure requirements in a case about practitioner signers for ballot measures which is of less compelling situation and one for disclosure of political contributions, justice scalia wrote requiring people to stand up and public for their political x foster civic courage without which democracy is to end. that's justice scalia. you can't avoid a disclosure because you might get your feelings hurt professing public backlash. that's part of the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy and a spirited debate.
individuals and corporations should not be able to spend millions of dollars from the gps for feeding of were praising candid it's with that selling the public,. that state of affairs does not resemble the home of the brave. finally senator mcconnell has been conveniently inconsistent in his application of his concern about the alleged harm of disclosure. currently candidates for the federal office must disclose all the contributions their campaigns receive above $200 up to the current limit of $2,600 per election. senator mcconnell says he is still in favor of those disclosures from and the disclosure of contributions to political party organizations. so i ask you, why is it in the public interest to require
disclosure of a $200 contribution to a candid it's political campaign and not in the public interest to disclose the $200 million expenditure? why is it okay to subject people would contribute $200 directly to a candid it's campaign to this alleged infringement of first amendment rights but not corporations or individuals to spend millions of dollars to collect or defeat a candidate. that is a total global standard. so it's time for senator mcconnell to stop saying that disclose that to some kind of lefty conspiracy or pretend that it is designed so squelch free speech. it is designed to accomplish what he previously said he supported, more disclosure, not less. the fastest way to and implement the public support for broad disclosure and transparency would be to pass the current passion of the disco's cent.
in the meantime because of the lack of congressional action on the disclose act there are other efforts underway to address big pieces of this issue. the fastest way to do that is to look at some of the issues relating to a bottle 1c4. because the one thing that has received the most attention deals with the irs regulations regarding news organizations which include groups like carl rose crossroads gps which support republican candidates and the priorities u.s. a group that supported president obama and 2012.
why have these bible once the four groups got so much attention in the aftermath of the citizens united decision. in citizens united the supreme court struck down laws that barred corporations from spending money to electoral defeat candidates for federal office. as a result for-profit corporations and not-for-profit corporations can spend money on these elections and the sea in 501c4 stands for corporation. and 501c4 has become the primary vehicle of choice for individuals and corporations that do not want to disclose to the public the money that they spend to try and influence the public's low. indeed, crossroads, for example, has two distinct organizational forms. first, there is american crossroad super pak pitches
organized under five to seven of the irs code. the second is crossroads gps organized under section 501c for some of the aris go. what is the main difference? remember, i earlier mentioned that bipartisan 92-6 vote in the senate in june 2000 which required five 2/7 to disclose the donors. they have to disclose if you give to the super pak, whether it's american crossroads or a democratic-leaning super pak. concretions are disclosed. but that disclosure requirement passed in 2000 and does not apply to 5a1c force says. there was less focus on requiring disclosure. prior to the citizens united decision there were not allowed to send any money for the expressed purpose of electing more defeating a candidate
although there were slowly emerging as vehicles for sham issue vance. now remember in 2007 accounts justified his opposition to requiring five 2/7 to disclose on the ground that we should have more disclosure not less. in fact, he said we should require disclosure from all the major political players in america. it is indisputable that in the aftermath of citizens united 501c for our major political players. according to the center for responsive politics the amount of secret money being spent by a bottle once the force shot up from virtually nothing before 2006 to over ten and 56 million
in the 2012 election cycle which comprises 85 percent of the 300 million total secured my spent give it to a 501c4. indeed, the political director of crossroads gps has the knowledge that 501 see force was formed the because some donors did not want to be ifs disclosed. now there is a catch that explains the underlying reason for all the recent focus on irs action relating the 501c45. just bear with me because is of little twist in the story, but a think it's important. under the irs guidelines an
organization can qualify for five policy for status so long as it's primary purpose is social welfare and education. the organization spends more than 49%, that has to be social welfare. this them more than 49% on political and activities that organization is not eligible in order to enforce the guidelines the irs has to examine the activities of these organizations to determine if they meet the requirements. after citizens united the address face and express question of applications from groups applying this vital once the force. the applications jumped from 752
in 2010 to about 3,357 in 2012, 90% jump. that's why we hear the stories about the irs seeking information about their activities. now obviously the ira's should and must apply these rules in a uniform way, but in my view we should never have involved the irs in the business of having to investigate organizations on the right or the left to make these determinations. and here is the really interesting thing. the underlying statutes, the written law passed by congress never envisioned putting the ira's in a position. the statute never called for the primary purpose test the irs
developed by regulation in the 1950's. indeed, section 501c4 of the internal revenue code, the statute provides the tax exemption to cynically organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. it does not say a five policy for should be engaged primarily in social welfare activities that can spend some of 9% of its bonds on political activity. i don't know of any dictionary where exclusively has come to mean primarily. year is the other thing. everyone in this room should be able to agree that while there was a fuzzy line between what constitutes social wealth of -- social welfare activities verses
certain political rectories involving issue advocacy under no circumstance is the intended definition include spending money to defeat or like to candidates for public office. heiress regulations state clearly that the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candid it for public office. the have the situation where the plain meaning of the irs code never envisioned the 501c for organization spending a dime to help elect to defeat candidates for public office. yet they are now being used to funnel millions of dollars of bonds closed mondays for that purpose. nobody really paid much attention to this discrepancy
between the red mall and the irs guidelines until after citizens united because until then even under the primary purpose trust no corporation could spend money for the expressed purpose of electing or defeating candid it's. citizens united change that. and now has more and more 501c for getting to the business of spending secret money to elect or defeat kibitz the discrepancy has become glaring. so glaring that in april of last year i sued the irs to enforce the plain meaning of the written statutes. i would also point out that the inspector general of the irs will issue the report entitled inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review also recommended that the irs look into the measure of primary exit
since then the irs has begun to review this discrepancy. as a result, a lawsuit has been withdrawn, at least for now. please do not fall for the partisan track that this irs review is some kind of political conspiracy to silence conservative groups believe the reality is that these groups are now being used on the right and left for a purpose that was never intended, to funnel undisclosed monies and to political election campaigns. if you want to spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat or like canada's for public office there's a simple choice, give it to a five to seven organization. as we discussed, the difference is the five 2/7 are required to be this close to the public. let me end with an appeal to work on a bipartisan basis to restore some faith in the campaign finance process by
providing for the disclosure and transparency support across party lines by over 85 percent of the american public. in 2007 now speaker banners said we ought to have full disclosure . in 2010 representative kantor, now the republican leaders said that anything that moves us back toward that notion of transparency and real time reporting of the nation's and contributions i think would be a helpful move toward restoring the confidence of voters. in 2010 representative mccarthy, now the republican whip said and ' the best way, the fairest way is greater transparency. let people understand where the money is going and what is happening. now that these three to one of the three most powerful man
hours of republican majority in the house the american people really should get a vote on the disclose act or a version of the why should the public and to need to be kept in the dark about who was spending gobs of money to influence the choice of candidates. set it was senator mcconnell is said why would a little disclosure be better than a lot. why would it? and its do something about it. as i said earlier, senator mcconnell wants to come back here where the third time. i would be happy to join in here at this podium think you all very much for your attention. [applause]